I get stuff like this (right) all the time from, to borrow a phrase from Tom Paxton, the "smart alecs" out there who believe they are part of the hereditary ruling elite. As you know I blame Walt Disney for promoting the idea of hereditary nobility long after the idea wore out its usefulness. Too many impressionable kids grew up believing that they were, in fact, the long lost princess (even some of the boys). But really. That's a fairy tale (which also may further explain a few things).
you read what you just wrote people? You start out with the standard false
assumption in order to make a point that has no real basis in logical
thought. The false assumption - that retail workers, dishwashers, ditch
diggers and laborers are pretty much too stupid to get training or, at
least, shouldn't have to be bothered to make any effort to improve their
job situation. They are saying that somehow, just because these jobs exist, we should
subsidize them in order to insure they don't get all riotous and mess up the elistists' front lawns.
The assumption is that if you subsidize these positions
at rates of pay considerably above what the market offers, that somehow
everybody will be happy and peace and joy and choruses of Kumbayah will
break out. This is based on Maslow's Heirarchy of Need and idea
socialists have seized on to justify placing all governance in the hands
of a few elite smart people. The theory goes that if you give people
assurance of food, water, clothing, shelter, healthcare and some sort of
busywork to do, they will spontaneously want to move up the heirarchy
and want to be productive, creative and useful citizens to the
collective that gives them the basics. The Russians discovered, for
instance, that when you took the farms away from the farmers and paid
them what farm hands get paid, they weren't interested in managing their
farms and doing all the extra hard work that farm owners do. They
wound up with everybody on the farm doing the minimum and everybody
began to starve (except the farmers that were growing stuff for
themselves off the books).
for Marxist theory, Maslow was wrong. People without adequate food,
shelter, clothing and healthcare do self-actuated, highly productive and
creative things all the time - whether because they just are that sort
of people or because they are hoping for a reward or payoff as a result
of what they are doing. The theory is balderdash. If you pay people a
lot of money who have no skills, then they have no motivation to learn
any new skills or even the bare bones requirements of their jobs. They
just sit around drawing a paycheck and doing as little as possible.
have been an employer. I took over one small company that was losing
$5000 a quarter. The staff was demoralized. Nobody had had a raise in
ages because there was no money to give them raises. I came in and
worked for six weeks without pay, Found a grant to cover my paycheck and
began overhauling the organization. Instead of raises being given by
time served, I looked around, found a couple of people who werer still
working hard and trying to do a good job and gave each a small raise
(remember we were still losing money). I visited my people and asked
for their input as to how we could improve things and make their lives
easier on the job. I acted promptly to get them what I could and gave
them timelines for when we would get the rest. I
stayed there late at night painting and fixing things up working hours I was not paid for. I got us some
nice carpet for the rooms they worked in. We organized their equipment
and made it easier for them to get to without having to run begging to
the bosses for what they needed. Even got them some equipment they needed.
In the first quarter we broke even and
had a 20% growth in customers. By the end of the year we had cleared
$19,000 above operating expenses and had a cash reserve. I gave more
raises and worker performance improved except in two or three cases
where the employees continued to do the minimum possible and grumbled
because they weren't getting raises. As they began to get the idea, they
began to do extra and to put more energy into their work. As they did
so, we made more money and I was able to give more raises.
employers do that kind of thing. If they don't, you shouldn't work for them. If
people didn't tolerate bad employers, they would have to pay far more
than the good employers for help. Then bad employees could take the
jobs with the bad employers, make more money for putting up with lousy
working conditions and everybody would be happy. Right?
of course, not. If people stopped working for a bad employer who didn't
give them a fair wage, the employer would have to improve working
conditions and give a fair wage in order to have an adequate number of employees to conduct business. Bad
employees, no matter how well paid, drive away customers, so the owner, in order to make more
profits would have to pay an increased market price in order to get good
how free market capitalism works. Artificially bumping up wages of
entry level workers does nothing to improve their working conditions,
their performance on the job or the way they take care of a business's
customers. Mostly it just gets minimum effort employees replaced by
higher paid people who can do the slacker's job and their own or the
operation gets roboticized.
stick out your tongue and say "nyuh-uh!" That always works. Maybe call
me, what was it? Oh, yeah, "mean-spirited and ignorant." Well I turned
a losing business into a profitable one with a healthy cash reserve,
30% customer increase, improved facilities, better program and
better-paid employees in 9 months. And I raised my entire first year's salary from outside sources. Years later after we ended the project, I still have former employees on my Friends List on Facebook.
So tell me, what have you done, oh great expert on
how business should run, that gives you expertise in this matter?
Sheesh!© 2015 by Tom King